w3c/ServiceWorker

Switch useCache to an enum

Closed this issue · 11 comments

jakearchibald commented

We're worried about fetch all importScripts on every navigation. It sounds really heavy and a waste of bandwidth.

New proposal. useCache values:

  • "never"
  • "imports"
  • "all"

It's a bit late in the day, but we all think this is a much safer change.

wanderview commented

Gecko bug to avoid shipping boolean useCache: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353638

Gecko bug to switch to enum: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353636

jakearchibald commented

I'm worried it isn't clear that useCache applies to updates, so I'm going to rename it updateViaCache. Objections welcome.

jakearchibald commented

Service worker spec PR #1107

wanderview commented

Just to clarify, is this also doing FB's request to bypass cache on register? The new name just made me wonder.

jakearchibald commented

Nah, I haven't added that. But you're right, the naming makes even more sense considering that.

jungkees commented

SW change: c92c148. (merged)
HTML change: whatwg/html@b5fcec0. (merged)
Tests: web-platform-tests/wpt#5515. (underway)

mfalken commented

We're confused that the service worker spec and the HTML spec seem to have contradicting definitions of updateViaCache in HTMLLinkElement.
(SW spec)

partial interface HTMLLinkElement {
  ...
  [CEReactions] attribute ServiceWorkerUpdateViaCache updateViaCache;
};

(HTML spec)

interface HTMLLinkElement : HTMLElement {
  ...
  [CEReactions] attribute DOMString updateViaCache;
};

It seems the HTMLLinkElement extension in the service worker spec is not needed since the HTML spec has it.

jakearchibald commented

Ahh yes, we need to remove the one from the service worker spec. The HTML spec is the correct one.

jungkees commented

Yes, it's being addressed in #1110 (comment).